Dear Christians and Conservatives, The Pope Is Not Our Enemy

Matt Walsh is a blogger, writer, speaker, and professional truth sayer.

Now that the pope’s trip to the United States is complete, I feel comfortable offering some analysis of it. The only problem is that everyone already wrote their “POPE FRANCIS IS AN EVIL LEFT WING PINKO” and “POPE FRANCIS IS A PROGRESSIVE HERO” articles, like, 14 minutes after his plane touched down in Washington, D.C., so by now you’re all poped out. There’s a short window to have opinions about a thing before everyone moves on to the next thing, and I’m outside that window. I get it.

Be that as it may, I feel the need to submit perhaps the 90,000 and last Pope Francis think piece, at least until the next pope-related occurrence renews the debate. As it happens, I don’t believe he’s a progressive — evil or otherwise — yet I don’t believe the criticisms from conservatives have been entirely without merit. Still, we should be able to disagree with the man without painting him as an enemy of our cause. That’s what troubled me the most over the past week; not what was revealed about the pope, but about conservatism.

Now, I’ll offer my critique upfront. The pope does deserves [sic] criticism, and has indeed received plenty of it, for failing to be more precise and straightforward in his condemnations of abortion, particularly in front of Congress. He was given the historic opportunity to speak to the entire House and Senate, and he fumbled this unprecedented chance to specifically and explicitly hold our lawmakers accountable for actively facilitating the ongoing slaughter of the unborn. Some apologists for the pope have reminded me that he didn’t need to say the word “abortion” in order to speak in defense of babies. This is true, and it’s true that he did speak eloquently and profoundly about the “dignity of life,” but none of these defenders have been able to answer this question: why not say the word? Why not condemn the mass killing of children in clear and particular language?

There is absolutely no question that the pope is against abortion. He’s spoken about it plenty of other times in plenty of other places, even on his trip here, and that is precisely what makes his approach on Capitol Hill so frustrating. Yes, he sermonized about abortion subtly with almost everything he said, but America is not a place for subtlety. America is a place where you need to occasionally come out and yell, “FOR ANYONE WHO IS CONFUSED, I AM TALKING ABOUT ABORTION RIGHT NOW AND SAYING THAT YOU SHOULDN’T KILL BABIES, OK?”

The pope can’t always cater to the oblivious sorts of people who could listen to a 60 minute speech about the dignity of human life and not understand that the man delivering it is avidly pro-life, but sometimes he needs to cater to them. In front of Congress was one of those times. If not for the benefit of the lawmakers then for the sake of the people watching at home. All because he made the defense of life a gentle underlying theme, liberals were yet again able to claim that he doesn’t really care that much about abortion. This is a false charge, but the more the lie spreads, the more it creates a moral scandal in this country. The pope should do what it takes to alleviate it. He didn’t while he was here, at least not during his two most prominent speeches in English, and that was a terrible and tragic error.

However, as conservatives, I don’t think this makes the pope our enemy, nor does it make it wise or right or prudent or honest to do as many have done and write him off as a bad guy. Usually for reasons that have little to do with what I just said, and more to do with the pope’s opinions on immigration, climate change, and the economy, many on the right have totally rebuked him, heaping upon him the sort of vicious hatred usually reserved for Hillary Clinton or Harry Reid. It should be possible to outline your differences with the pope while making it clear you’re still on the same side of the cultural battle, but a large number of conservative [sic] made no such attempt.

And these sorts of comments were nothing compared to the vitriol that poured all over social media. It got to the point where I couldn’t even mention his name on Twitter without right wingers calling him a “piece of sh*t” and a “f**king communist.” For whatever reason, my email inbox became a sounding board for pope complaints, and most of them were downright unhinged. Here’s just one sample:

Dear Matt, WHEN are you going to finally come out and condemn this LIBERAL MARXIST PRO-ABORTION Pope? He is no better than OBAMA. He is a disgrace and any “conservative” who defends him is a DISGRACE too. I don’t usually use foul language… but to hell with this f**king Pope.

These are strange times.

I understand we disagree with him on a few things, but to make him out as the enemy of conservatism? That is a very confusing development, and it only gets more confusing when you consider that Donald freaking Trump has been lovingly adopted by right at the very moment the pope is cast aside and disowned. What kind of sense does that make?

Yes, it’s true that most conservatives love capitalism and this pope doesn’t, but why does that matter so much? He is far from the first Christian to feel this way. Many great Christian thinkers, especially in the 20th century, have expressed severe skepticism about an economic system that, they believe, consolidates wealth around a tiny fraction of the population. GK Chesterton once said ”the problem with capitalism is not too many capitalists, but not enough capitalists.” I think this sums up the pope’s view on the subject as well, and it about represents the feelings of a large number of wise and godly Christians. Are conservatives in this country just now discovering the Christian criticism of free market capitalism? I’ve been reading similar ideas in Christian writings my whole life. Where have these people been?

Personally, I stridently dissent from the pope and other Christ followers on this subject. I think capitalism is by far the best system to care for the the poor and the downtrodden, and protect the liberty and freedom of us all. I also strongly disagree with the pope’s acceptance of the man-made climate change myth. But do these disagreements – despite all of the areas where the pope is fundamentally and crucially right, despite his evident character and integrity, despite his foundational love for Our Lord, despite his insistence that human society be ordered towards God and Truth, despite his crusade for human dignity — mean he is not on “my side”? Should I cherish Donald Trump more than Pope Francis merely because one spews the “right” talking points on immigration and the economy? Is “conservatism” really nothing more than a secular religion of capitalism and nationalism? Does it have nothing to say about goodness, virtue, dignity, and universal truth? If a man is right about what we should do with our souls but wrong about what we should do with our money, should I “condemn” him?

If conservatism is more in line with Donald Trump than Pope Francis, I want nothing to do with it.

If that’s what that conservatism is, then I would like to officially declare my emancipation from it. If conservatism is more in line with Donald Trump than Pope Francis, I want nothing to do with it. If conservatism does not see issues of life, dignity, and moral truth as primary, then I am not a conservative. Sure, I like capitalism, I want to close the border, I don’t believe in climate change, yadda yadda and so forth, but I have never seen these as fundamental to my identity. And I have never judged a person as an ideological opponent based only on these issues.

My attitude has always been this: if you are pro-life, if you are pro-family, if you believe in reclaiming the culture for God, if you reject moral relativism, if you are a truth seeker who knows that man’s ultimate goal and purpose is to find everlasting life in eternal union with our Creator, you are on my side. For a long time, I also thought you were on the “conservative” side. Maybe I was wrong about that.

Remember, no matter the label we use, Christ said “For whoever is not against us is for us” (Mark 9:40). Whether the person is the pope or the plumber, if they fall into the category I just listed, they certainly cannot be against us. They may differ on secondary issues, and they may differ on how best to achieve the primary end, but if they seek truth, goodness, and life eternal, then they are a friend and an ally in the fight against the forces of darkness. Period. This is what Christ plainly told us.

If “conservatism” is a system of thought that might still make an enemy of such a person, then “conservatism” works against Christ’s explicit commands. If your “conservative” leanings lead you to categorically denounce good and faithful Christians who “worship the Father in spirit and truth” (John 4:23) due to differences over financial policies and immigration law, then you have sculpted an idol out of an ideology. You have placed it above things eternal. You have made it your golden calf and your damnation.

So, yes, if conservatism is really just about protecting capitalism and the border — worthy causes, unless they are your only causes– then the pope is not one. But, for God’s sake, he certainly cannot be seen as a liberal. Liberalism — or progressivism, or secular humanism, or whatever label you use — is dedicated to the undermining of absolute truth, the eradication of religious faith, the instillation of moral relativism, and the deification of the self. It sees the pursuit of pleasure and comfort as the ultimate goal of existence. It is by definition against Christianity, and in fact the destruction of Christianity is its greatest mission. It worships death and sex and believes that the most vulnerable and inconvenient human beings ought to be executed and thrown in the dumpster. It does not recognize good or evil, sin or virtue, and at every turn it degrades man’s dignity and purpose. This is the enemy. Not the people themselves, but their ideology, their religion. This is what we should concentrate on fighting. And in that struggle, the pope is very much on our side.

Even the pope’s views that some consider “liberal” are, at their base, incredibly anti-liberal. Much was made of the pope’s “climate change encyclical,” Laudato Si — conservatives (who didn’t read it) accused it of being a screed indistinguishable from a chapter in an Al Gore book. But what they seemed to miss (because the media didn’t tell them) is that the document also condemns abortion, “transgenderism,” and feminism.

Liberal? I don’t see much “liberalism” there, just as I see very little that could be called “liberal” in his various remarks last week.

Personally, I was moved by many of his speeches, especially when he spoke so consistently about the dignity of human life and reminded us of God’s relentless pursuit of His lost sheep. “We are sought by God; he waits for us,” the pope said. I needed to hear that, I don’t know about you. And I think the culture needed to hear it. And I think it says something very troubling about American conservatism that so many of us must find reason to be cynical about it.

Have you gone back and read the transcripts of his speeches? Probably not. But I have, and I found little resembling modern liberalism in them.

Tell me, does a “liberal” preach about the “transcendent dignity of human life” which should inspire us to “protect life at every stage,” as Francis did in his remarks to Congress? Does an opponent of conservatism invite us to partake in the “feast of the Gospel” and speak about the family as a “domestic church,” as Francis did to World Meeting of Families on Sunday? Does a “piece of sh*t communist” remind us that God “never forsakes his loving plan or repent of having created us,” as Francis did at the White House? Does “Obama in a white robe” say that “the similarities between the civil institution of marriage and the Christian sacrament [should be] considerable and shared,” as Pope Francis did when speaking to bishops in Philadelphia? Does a liberal heathen invite us to “receive from Christ the power of the resurrection” and assure us that “Jesus will come to meet us [and] restore our dignity as children of God,” as Francis did in his address to inmates at a prison in Philadelphia? Would a “liberal” insist that government officials like Kim Davis have a “human right” to refrain from participating in gay marriages, like he did when speaking to reporters on Sunday?

Could you imagine Obama ever saying that “the limitation of power is an idea implicit in the concept of law itself” or that we ought to have “universal fraternity and respect for the unborn” like Francis did at the U.N.? Could you picture Nancy Pelosi suggesting that “all that is beautiful leads us to God” and that “in the family there is always light,” like Francis did during the World Meeting of Families?

Even the pope’s most famous “liberal” remark was actually a profound indictment of liberal thought. He notoriously quipped ”who am I to judge?” when asked about homosexuals, but the rest of his response makes clear that he was saying he wouldn’t judge a homosexual who accepts and follows Christ, remains chaste, and doesn’t succumb to his inclinations. He said the the “tendency” is not the issue. It is the act, the choice, the sin that is wrong. This is not a “liberal” conception of homosexuality. It is a Christian conception.

The pope is not a liberal. He may not be a perfect man, but he is a very decent, honest, and God fearing one, and he has done nothing to earn the scorn and contempt of the very people who claim to desire what he desires: a culture centered around God and Truth.

Is that not our goal?

Are we not on the same side so long as we desire that same end?

I thought that’s what we were fighting for.

Maybe I was wrong.

–

TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual.

There is absolutely no question that the pope is against abortion. He’s spoken about it plenty of other times in plenty of other places, even on his trip here, and that is precisely what makes his approach on Capitol Hill so frustrating. Yes, he sermonized about abortion subtly with almost everything he said, but America is not a place for subtlety. America is a place where you need to occasionally come out and yell, “FOR ANYONE WHO IS CONFUSED, I AM TALKING ABOUT ABORTION RIGHT NOW AND SAYING THAT YOU SHOULDN’T KILL BABIES, OK?”

The pope can’t always cater to the oblivious sorts of people who could listen to a 60 minute speech about the dignity of human life and not understand that the man delivering it is avidly pro-life, but sometimes he needs to cater to them. In front of Congress was one of those times. If not for the benefit of the lawmakers then for the sake of the people watching at home. All because he made the defense of life a gentle underlying theme, liberals were yet again able to claim that he doesn’t really care that much about abortion. This is a false charge, but the more the lie spreads, the more it creates a moral scandal in this country. The pope should do what it takes to alleviate it. He didn’t while he was here, at least not during his two most prominent speeches in English, and that was a terrible and tragic error.

However, as conservatives, I don’t think this makes the pope our enemy, nor does it make it wise or right or prudent or honest to do as many have done and write him off as a bad guy. Usually for reasons that have little to do with what I just said, and more to do with the pope’s opinions on immigration, climate change, and the economy, many on the right have totally rebuked him, heaping upon him the sort of vicious hatred usually reserved for Hillary Clinton or Harry Reid. It should be possible to outline your differences with the pope while making it clear you’re still on the same side of the cultural battle, but a large number of conservative made no such attempt.

And these sorts of comments were nothing compared to the vitriol that poured all over social media. It got to the point where I couldn’t even mention his name on Twitter without right wingers calling him a “piece of sh*t” and a “f**king communist.” For whatever reason, my email inbox became a sounding board for pope complaints, and most of them were downright unhinged. Here’s just one sample:

Dear Matt, WHEN are you going to finally come out and condemn this LIBERAL MARXIST PRO-ABORTION Pope? He is no better than OBAMA. He is a disgrace and any “conservative” who defends him is a DISGRACE too. I don’t usually use foul language… but to hell with this f**king Pope.

These are strange times.

I understand we disagree with him on a few things, but to make him out as the enemy of conservatism? That is a very confusing development, and it only gets more confusing when you consider that Donald freaking Trump has been lovingly adopted by right at the very moment the pope is cast aside and disowned. What kind of sense does that make?

Yes, it’s true that most conservatives love capitalism and this pope doesn’t, but why does that matter so much? He is far from the first Christian to feel this way. Many great Christian thinkers, especially in the 20th century, have expressed severe skepticism about an economic system that, they believe, consolidates wealth around a tiny fraction of the population. GK Chesterton once said ”the problem with capitalism is not too many capitalists, but not enough capitalists.” I think this sums up the pope’s view on the subject as well, and it about represents the feelings of a large number of wise and godly Christians. Are conservatives in this country just now discovering the Christian criticism of free market capitalism? I’ve been reading similar ideas in Christian writings my whole life. Where have these people been?

Personally, I stridently dissent from the pope and other Christ followers on this subject. I think capitalism is by far the best system to care for the the poor and the downtrodden, and protect the liberty and freedom of us all. I also strongly disagree with the pope’s acceptance of the man-made climate change myth. But do these disagreements – despite all of the areas where the pope is fundamentally and crucially right, despite his evident character and integrity, despite his foundational love for Our Lord, despite his insistence that human society be ordered towards God and Truth, despite his crusade for human dignity — mean he is not on “my side”? Should I cherish Donald Trump more than Pope Francis merely because one spews the “right” talking points on immigration and the economy? Is “conservatism” really nothing more than a secular religion of capitalism and nationalism? Does it have nothing to say about goodness, virtue, dignity, and universal truth? If a man is right about what we should do with our souls but wrong about what we should do with our money, should I “condemn” him?

If conservatism is more in line with Donald Trump than Pope Francis, I want nothing to do with it.

Share:

If that’s what that conservatism is, then I would like to officially declare my emancipation from it. If conservatism is more in line with Donald Trump than Pope Francis, I want nothing to do with it. If conservatism does not see issues of life, dignity, and moral truth as primary, then I am not a conservative. Sure, I like capitalism, I want to close the border, I don’t believe in climate change, yadda yadda and so forth, but I have never seen these as fundamental to my identity. And I have never judged a person as an ideological opponent based only on these issues.

My attitude has always been this: if you are pro-life, if you are pro-family, if you believe in reclaiming the culture for God, if you reject moral relativism, if you are a truth seeker who knows that man’s ultimate goal and purpose is to find everlasting life in eternal union with our Creator, you are on my side. For a long time, I also thought you were on the “conservative” side. Maybe I was wrong about that.

Remember, no matter the label we use, Christ said “For whoever is not against us is for us” (Mark 9:40). Whether the person is the pope or the plumber, if they fall into the category I just listed, they certainly cannot be against us. They may differ on secondary issues, and they may differ on how best to achieve the primary end, but if they seek truth, goodness, and life eternal, then they are a friend and an ally in the fight against the forces of darkness. Period. This is what Christ plainly told us.

If “conservatism” is a system of thought that might still make an enemy of such a person, then “conservatism” works against Christ’s explicit commands. If your “conservative” leanings lead you to categorically denounce good and faithful Christians who “worship the Father in spirit and truth” (John 4:23) due to differences over financial policies and immigration law, then you have sculpted an idol out of an ideology. You have placed it above things eternal. You have made it your golden calf and your damnation.

So, yes, if conservatism is really just about protecting capitalism and the border — worthy causes, unless they are your only causes– then the pope is not one. But, for God’s sake, he certainly cannot be seen as a liberal. Liberalism — or progressivism, or secular humanism, or whatever label you use — is dedicated to the undermining of absolute truth, the eradication of religious faith, the instillation of moral relativism, and the deification of the self. It sees the pursuit of pleasure and comfort as the ultimate goal of existence. It is by definition against Christianity, and in fact the destruction of Christianity is its greatest mission. It worships death and sex and believes that the most vulnerable and inconvenient human beings ought to be executed and thrown in the dumpster. It does not recognize good or evil, sin or virtue, and at every turn it degrades man’s dignity and purpose. This is the enemy. Not the people themselves, but their ideology, their religion. This is what we should concentrate on fighting. And in that struggle, the pope is very much on our side.

Even the pope’s views that some consider “liberal” are, at their base, incredibly anti-liberal. Much was made of the pope’s “climate change encyclical,” Laudato Si — conservatives (who didn’t read it) accused it of being a screed indistinguishable from a chapter in an Al Gore book. But what they seemed to miss (because the media didn’t tell them) is that the document also condemns abortion, “transgenderism,” and feminism.

Liberal? I don’t see much “liberalism” there, just as I see very little that could be called “liberal” in his various remarks last week.

Personally, I was moved by many of his speeches, especially when he spoke so consistently about the dignity of human life and reminded us of God’s relentless pursuit of His lost sheep. “We are sought by God; he waits for us,” the pope said. I needed to hear that, I don’t know about you. And I think the culture needed to hear it. And I think it says something very troubling about American conservatism that so many of us must find reason to be cynical about it.

Have you gone back and read the transcripts of his speeches? Probably not. But I have, and I found little resembling modern liberalism in them.

Tell me, does a “liberal” preach about the “transcendent dignity of human life” which should inspire us to “protect life at every stage,” as Francis did in his remarks to Congress? Does an opponent of conservatism invite us to partake in the “feast of the Gospel” and speak about the family as a “domestic church,” as Francis did to World Meeting of Families on Sunday? Does a “piece of sh*t communist” remind us that God “never forsakes his loving plan or repent of having created us,” as Francis did at the White House? Does “Obama in a white robe” say that “the similarities between the civil institution of marriage and the Christian sacrament [should be] considerable and shared,” as Pope Francis did when speaking to bishops in Philadelphia? Does a liberal heathen invite us to “receive from Christ the power of the resurrection” and assure us that “Jesus will come to meet us [and] restore our dignity as children of God,” as Francis did in his address to inmates at a prison in Philadelphia? Would a “liberal” insist that government officials like Kim Davis have a “human right” to refrain from participating in gay marriages, like he did when speaking to reporters on Sunday?

Could you imagine Obama ever saying that “the limitation of power is an idea implicit in the concept of law itself” or that we ought to have “universal fraternity and respect for the unborn” like Francis did at the U.N.? Could you picture Nancy Pelosi suggesting that “all that is beautiful leads us to God” and that “in the family there is always light,” like Francis did during the World Meeting of Families?

Even the pope’s most famous “liberal” remark was actually a profound indictment of liberal thought. He notoriously quipped ”who am I to judge?” when asked about homosexuals, but the rest of his response makes clear that he was saying he wouldn’t judge a homosexual who accepts and follows Christ, remains chaste, and doesn’t succumb to his inclinations. He said the the “tendency” is not the issue. It is the act, the choice, the sin that is wrong. This is not a “liberal” conception of homosexuality. It is a Christian conception.

The pope is not a liberal. He may not be a perfect man, but he is a very decent, honest, and God fearing one, and he has done nothing to earn the scorn and contempt of the very people who claim to desire what he desires: a culture centered around God and Truth.

Is that not our goal?

Are we not on the same side so long as we desire that same end?

I thought that’s what we were fighting for.

Maybe I was wrong.

–

TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.

The Billy Graham of Colonial America

Benjamin Franklin said the preacher’s outdoor sermons could be heard by 30,000 people at a time.

~

By

Thomas S. Kidd

Dec. 4, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET

This month marks the tricentennial of the birth of the most famous man in America before the Revolution. George Whitefield, born on Dec. 16, 1714, was a Church of England minister who led the Great Awakening, a series of Christian revivals that swept through Britain and America in the mid-1700s. Whitefield drew enormous audiences wherever he went on both sides of the Atlantic, and his publications alone doubled the output of the American colonial presses between 1739 and 1742. If there is a modern figure comparable to Whitefield, it is Billy Graham. But even Mr. Graham has followed a path first cut by Whitefield.

What made Whitefield and his gospel message so famous? First, he mastered the period’s new media. Cultivating a vast network of newspaper publicity, printers and letter-writing correspondents, Whitefield used all means available to get the word out.

Most important, he joined with Benjamin Franklin, who became Whitefield’s main printer in America, even though Franklin was no evangelical. Their business relationship transformed into a close friendship, although Whitefield routinely pressed Franklin, unsuccessfully, about his need for Jesus.

“As you have made a pretty considerable progress in the mysteries of electricity,” Whitefield wrote to Franklin in 1752, “I would now humbly recommend to your diligent unprejudiced pursuit and study the mystery of the new-birth.”

Whitefield’s print campaign helped spread his message and his fame, but his preaching is what galvanized his followers. It’s too bad there was no YouTube in Whitefield’s day, but the testimonies of those who heard him are compelling. David Garrick, one of England’s most famous actors at the time, noted with what must have been a touch of envy that Whitefield could “make men weep or tremble by his varied utterances of the word ‘Mesopotamia.’ ”

The preacher had trained as an actor when he was young, and he adapted theater techniques for use in the pulpit. Taking on the character of biblical figures during his sermons, which were often delivered outdoors to accommodate the crowds, Whitefield would weave dramatic, emotional stories rather than recite dry doctrine from a written text. His voice would boom across the fields—Franklin estimated that as many as 30,000 people could hear Whitefield speaking at one time.

Whitefield’s talent for media and public performance has raised questions about his sincerity. Was he just an evangelical salesman, more concerned with his own fame and fortune than with bringing people to God? Whitefield confessed to his struggles with the “fiery trial of popularity” and the temptations of arrogance and self-indulgence.

But he seems to have weathered that trial as well as any famous pastor has. He did not personally profit much from his ministry, and indeed Benjamin Franklin attested to his integrity. Most of the money that Whitefield got from donations went into his charitable projects, namely an orphanage in Georgia. The rest covered the costs of traveling throughout Britain and America.

His greatest personal failing was one shared by many prominent whites in America: The Englishman—who was first sent overseas in 1738, to be a parish priest in Savannah, Ga.—was a slave owner. He also criticized masters who abused slaves in the South, and believed that Christian masters should evangelize and educate enslaved people. Yet the idea of “benevolent” enslavement strikes modern observers as an inexcusable contradiction. Whitefield, along with other slave-owners of the era, compounded the glaring incongruity of holding people in bondage while trumpeting the value of freedom.

Despite that moral blemish, Whitefield was a gospel minister of great seriousness. The Bible, he proclaimed, showed that people’s sins separated them from God, but that Jesus offered them forgiveness and freedom through his death on the cross, and his resurrection from the dead.

That message drove Whitefield to risk health and safety in his relentless schedule. It is impossible to know exactly how many sermons Whitefield delivered, but 18,000 is probably a safe estimate, as he routinely preached twice or more daily. He survived multiple assassination attempts by people who hated him and his fervent religious message, or who wanted to become famous themselves.

He not only traversed the length of the American colonies from Maine to Georgia, but he also made 13 trans-Atlantic voyages between Britain and America, at a time when such crossings were extremely treacherous. His strength finally ran out in 1770 on his last visit to America; he died, and was buried, in Newburyport, Mass.

Whitefield didn’t live to see the Revolution, but historians credit the Great Awakening, and its defiance of the established church, with instilling in American colonists a sense of liberty’s revolutionary possibilities.

Mr. Kidd, a professor of history at Baylor University, is the author of “George Whitefield: America’s Spiritual Founding Father” (Yale University Press, 2014).

110 and Still Not Grown-Up

The story of Peter Pan remains as rousing now as when it first appeared.

When “Peter Pan Live!” airs on NBC this Thursday night, it will mark 110 years to the month that the boy who wouldn’t grow up first flew through the window of our collective consciousness in the classic play “Peter Pan” by J.M. Barrie (1860-1937). He’s never really disappeared. And thanks to the feature-film “Pan” being released next summer, with Hugh Jackman as Peter’s pirate foe, and “Finding Neverland,” a new musical with Matthew Morrison and Kelsey Grammer that is based on a 2004 film and coming to Broadway next year, the latest burst of Peter Pan-demonium is sure to continue.

Peter Pan has crowed and flown in every entertainment medium—most of which weren’t even in existence in 1904—and portraying his magical adventures has always stretched the limits of the available technology, from stage to film (both “live” and animated) to a series of television spectacles starting in 1955 that continues six decades later. Peter Pan was the first superhero, and like Tarzan, Superman and Batman he is an orphan with exceptional abilities.

Barrie introduced the Peter Pan character in his rather obscure 1902 book, “The Little White Bird; or, Adventures in Kensington Gardens,” which contains the closest thing to an origin story that the author ever provided: Peter is a newborn boy who escapes to one of London’s more fashionable parks, where he is essentially taught how to fly by the birds and the fairies. Within two years, Peter had taken his familiar adolescent form and Barrie had invented the rest of the cast of characters—including the Darling family (most notably Peter’s leading lady, for whom Barrie invented the name “Wendy”); the Lost Boys; Peter’s gal-pal fairy companion, Tinker Bell, and his nemesis, Captain Hook; as well as Hook’s ship full of cutthroats and scurvy knaves. Barrie also fleshed out the geography of Peter’s home base, “the Never Never Land” where mermaids are real but parents are imaginary. In his description, various dominions are dominated, respectively, by Indians, pirates, young people in animal costumes, and intelligent beasts; the island is rather literally a blueprint for Disneyland.

Though Barrie was born in Scotland and his most famous character in England, over the years Peter Pan has become increasingly American (though Allison Williams apparently will be bucking that trend when she fills Peter’s famous green tights on NBC—she’s practicing the queen’s English). In his cinematic debut, a 1924 Hollywood silent film starring Betty Bronson, the Lost Boys sing “My Country ’Tis of Thee” as Hook gives the order to execute them. Peter was then born anew as a Yank (without any British accent) in three different musical treatments in the early years of the American baby boom. The first, in 1950, was a somewhat intellectual treatment with music and words by Leonard Bernstein, wherein Wendy’s lullaby to the Lost Boys is a contemplation of reincarnation. Then came the animated Disney version of 1953 (with songs by Sammy Fain and Sammy Cahn), in which Peter, for the first time, was played by an actual boy (on the soundtrack at least) as opposed to an adult female; the cartoon Hook (voiced by Hans Conreid) is considerably more menacing than his later Broadway counterpart and therefore the conflict is more dramatic. But much of the tension derives from the romantic quadrangle between Peter, Wendy, the Indian princess Tiger Lilly and a rather grown-up, Marilyn Monroe-like Tinker Bell—even the mermaids are rivals for Peter’s masculine attention.

But the “Peter Pan” that was repeatedly televised and that multiple generations have grown up with thanks to various stage revivals with other casts is the musical version first seen on Broadway in 1954, with a score by Moose Charlap (father of the celebrated jazz pianist Bill Charlap) and Carolyn Leigh, plus additional songs (including “Never Never Land”) by Jule Styne, Betty Comden, and Adolph Green. This is the one with the richest score and the most iconic portrayals, especially with Mary Martin as the androgynous title character and comic Cyril Ritchard as the dandified villain. (Hook is sometimes described as an “Eton man,” but he’s also an eaten man, in the sense that he is consumed by a crocodile in the finale.) Although this treatment is fairly faithful to Barrie’s original, the story here is mostly played for laughs—especially Ritchard’s prissy pirate—and the whole production is more burlesque than adventure.

Subsequent Pans have sought to restore at least some of the dramatic gravitas to the familiar story, starting with the 1991 “Hook,” Steven Spielberg’s utterly charmless 20-ton turkey of a sequel. In 2002, “Peter Pan: A Musical Adventure” recast the story in the mold of such modish musical fantasies as “The Phantom of the Opera” and “Jekyll & Hyde.” In 2003, a new theatrical film version of “Peter Pan” expertly presented the magic of Peter and Wendy in the technology of digital CGI effects, thus updating the story for the age of Harry Potter. In 2004, two different kinds of back story appeared: the novel “Peter and the Starcatchers” (and subsequent play both on Broadway and off) was a prequel depicting the earlier years of Pan and Hook, while the film “Finding Neverland” told the story behind the story—how Barrie (played by Johnny Depp) came to conceive the characters.

Peter’s attractions seem ageless. In fact, the only individuals who claim to disapprove of him are those curmudgeonly pseudo-psychologists who invented something called “Peter Pan Syndrome”—as if that were a bad thing—with the obvious motivation of revenge on everybody who has ever had more fun than they did. (Whenever the word “syndrome” is attached to something, it is rarely a compliment.) They are truly the descendants not necessarily of Hook, but of Mr. Darling, whose only “passion,” Barrie tells us, is “for being exactly like his neighbors.” Peter, on the other hand, has a passion for virtually everything. “ I am youth! I am joy! I am freedom!” he shouts. Even death itself holds no terror for him. “To die will be an awfully big adventure,” he tells us. And yet aging and then dying are perhaps the only adventures that Peter Pan will never know.

The latest installment in “The Hunger Games” film franchise opens on Nov. 21 and promises to be another blockbuster. What accounts for the movies’ success? The obvious answer, of course, is the combination of the irresistible Jennifer Lawrence and Hollywood special effects with a rollicking good story.

But we shouldn’t ignore the deeper themes of the tale, which are not only classic but classical, reaching back to Greece and Rome and the very foundations of Western culture.

At the heart of the story are three beautiful, heroic young people: Katniss Everdeen and her male romantic interests, Peeta Mellark and Gale Hawthorne. They form a love triangle, but they also represent, from the point of view of the ancients, an aroused citizenry banding together and fighting for freedom against an evil empire.

Katniss, played by Ms. Lawrence, is “an updated Theseus,” according to the books’ author, Suzanne Collins. In Greek myth, Theseus and other young people from Athens were sent as tribute—human sacrificial offerings—to King Minos in Crete. The king turned them over to the Minotaur, a murderous beast who was half-man and half-bull and lived in a maze or labyrinth. The intrepid Theseus killed the Minotaur and saved his countrymen.

Like that ancient Greek hero, Katniss defies an oppressive empire and sparks a revolution. But it’s an update with a twist. Today’s Theseus is female, which calls to mind not only modern girl power but also ancient lore. Her character is inspired by the famous Amazon warriors and Atalanta, the great female runner of Greek myth. Katniss also recalls Artemis, goddess of the hunt—Diana to the Romans—because her preferred weapon is the bow and arrow.

Like imperial Rome, the country of “The Hunger Games” is a once-free society now dominated by a corrupt and rapacious capital city. A president exercises, in effect, the power of an emperor. He lives in a grand city called the Capitol, and his government feeds off its provinces, much as ancient Rome did. The people of the Capitol radiate a baroque and overripe luxuriousness, like the lords and ladies of imperial Rome, while the provincials are poor and virtuous.

This pattern goes back to the great Roman historian Tacitus (ca. 56-117), who drew a contrast between the primitive but free Germans and Britons and the decadent Romans who had lost their republican virtue under the Caesars. Tacitus would have understood why the bad guys in Ms. Collins’s Capitol have Latinate first names such as Coriolanus Snow, the coldhearted president, and Caesar Flickerman, the smarmy host of the televised version of the games. Meanwhile, the rebels from the provinces have names that evoke nature (“katniss,” for example, is the name of a real, edible plant) or have English or Greek roots—anything but Rome.

In “The Hunger Games,” the people are kept in line by hunger and entertainment. The privileged folks in the Capitol get both “bread and circuses”—the phrase comes from the Roman satirist Juvenal. The Latin is “panem et circenses,” and Panem is the name that Ms. Collins purposefully gives the country where her story is set.

The most important entertainers are the participants in the hunger games, a fight to the death, reminiscent of the gladiatorial games of ancient Rome, whose influence Ms. Collins also cites. The games begin with the very Roman ritual of participants entering a stadium on chariots to the wild applause of the crowd. Like ancient gladiators, the participants are doomed but idolized.

Much as in the myth of Theseus, the participants in the hunger games are offered as tribute to the Capitol, one young man and one young woman from each district of the country. For the lone survivor, the games are a rite of passage. All ancient societies made young people go through such rites. In Athens, new warriors had to survive in the woods, and there is an echo of this in the hunger games, which are set in a jungle.

Myths work because their themes are of abiding interest, and “The Hunger Games” is no exception. We still have rites of passage for young people today. If ours tend to test mental rather than physical stamina (college entrance exams are more common than boot camps), they remain daunting and demanding in their own way—which perhaps explains why the life-or-death stakes of “The Hunger Games” strike such a deep chord among our decidedly nonclassical teens.

—Prof. Strauss teaches history and classics at Cornell. His next book, “The Death of Caesar: The Story of History’s Most Famous Assassination,” will be published by Simon & Schuster in March.

This is a Facebook post I just sent to someone as a response to their post regarding reaction to the 14 December 2012 Sandy Hook tragedy. I’ve taken individual references to actual friends/family out, but I wanted to share it [a followup to my previous post: society, psychoses and weapons: what to do?], as it contains information that people might take the time to look up for themselves. Also, it reaffirms my own position on this most important issue that faces, not just America, but all societies. I expanded the post in some cases where I thought clarification would help:

I agree in how small this discussion seems in the grand scheme of things, but then again, I believe that all dialogue is good and not just a “speck of dust.” Too much of what passes for dialogue today is nothing more than partisan rhetoric with its only intent being to slam the opposition.

This site [the Facebook site I originally posted on] has some of the best discussions around. On my site, friends and family seem many times to want to talk about Peyton Manning or Tom Brady or just to post Jesus affirmations. In all fairness, I’ve done that too, and hey, what’s social media for if not to socialize. All reasonable dialogue is worthwhile. To steal the title of a recent Bob Dylan song, “It’s All Good.” Even if friends/family don’t participate in the political/philosophical dialogue, at least they hear how I feel, and that’s good enough for me. Notably, and appreciatively to me, there are some who do participate.

I see the problem of mass killings as complex, with three elements: societal ills (media violence, gaming violence and exponentially morphing technology), the increase of psychoses, especially among males in their early thirties. Mother Jones did a recent article with specific stats: [“Half of the cases involved school or workplace shootings (12 and 19, respectively); the other 31 cases took place in locations including shopping malls, restaurants, government buildings, and military bases. Forty four of the killers were white males. Only one of them was a woman. (See Goleta, Calif., in 2006.) The average age of the killers was 35, though the youngest among them was a mere 11 years old. (See Jonesboro, Ark., in 1998.) A majority were mentally ill—and many displayed signs of it before setting out to kill.”]: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map), and finally the presence of weapons (not just guns, but fire, bombs, machetes, vehicles…).

Weapons are not going to go away. Societal ills can be worked on, although there is much money in not toning down the violence in movies, TV and gaming (see the book by Dave Grossman (http://www.amazon.com/Stop-Teaching-Our-Kids-Kill/dp/0609606131#_). As far as working on mental illness, there are great organizations doing great work (NAMI and actress Glenn Close’s BringChange2Mind site), but their hands are too often tied by legalities.

I once had to become legal guardian for a relative with schizo-affective disorder. After multiple police encounters with the person in his trying to live alone, I still had to go to court with an attorney. The relative was assigned an attorney. The hearing determined, after arguments, that this person indeed needed a guardian.

I could only take the experience and heartbreak for two years. Then, I went to court again, with attorneys on both sides, to assign a new guardian and conservator, and to place the person in assisted living. These proceedings, I wholeheartedly admit, are necessary. Otherwise, anyone can just lock up some “crazy” off the street, or have some family member arrested or institutionalized, maybe with eyes on an inheritance.

There is no easy answer to societal ills (with exponentially morphing technology in which people are spun out into castaways more-and-more with heated anger toward society) or to mental illness, with lawyers in the middle, or finally weapons rightfully guaranteed by the Second Amendment to protect one’s home and family against assault from criminals or from a tyrannical government. We’re free not to buy guns. We’re free not to pray. But, when our home is broken into and our family is in danger, the first thing a person without a gun would do is call for someone with a gun and pray that that person arrives in time. Who is one going to call if the government comes after them, now that they can, for any reason at all? See the new NDAA bill signed into effect by “our” president.

Perhaps I’m overreacting. I just felt like dialogue is never a “speck of dust,” even though I agree that it seems that way. It’s all good, and it’s what’s needed more. Like many today, my mind is heavy regarding the killings, and like many, I have to get it out. The Journal News in New York and Gannett News Service (it’s corporate owner) are idiots who couldn’t reason their way out of a paper bag as far as their publishing, interactively, the names, homes and addresses of gun owners and then their hiring armed security guards to protect themselves.

“Our greatest strength lies in the gentleness and tenderness of our heart.” —Rumi

~

System Of A Down sang about “revolution, the only solution.” Maybe, a revolution of the heart is what we need? –SB

~

“We need to forget what we think we are, so that we can really become what we are”. —Paulo Coelho

~

The philosopher Pindar was the first to say “learn, and become what you are.” [Paul Tournier, in chapter four of his book, The Meaning of Persons, expands on the thought beautifully.] “The point is to cease wearing masks and to celebrate who we are without the disingenuousness of disguise.” [ see my previous blog: Becoming What You Are]–SB

~

Facebook friend: “I believe in one thing only, the power of human will.” –Joseph Stalin

~

Me: Respectfully, Stalin was a mass murderer, which would be my objection. Nietzsche spoke famously of a twist to those same words, “the will to power.” Nietzsche wrote: “My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all …space and to extend its force (its will to power) and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement (“union”) with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: thus they then conspire together for power.”

~

On the surface, they appear the same, but one’s ultimate intent with the power they will, or wield, is the difference–mass murder or not. I would offer the example of the Stalin’s and Mao’s [and Che Guevara’s] who have willed power through massive and indiscriminate murder. Obama and Romney will power to control their own partisan agendas, whether those of the left or right. They have no intention of going so far as to murder people though. Ron Paul wills personal power to each individual with the government serving to protect the individuals’ powers.

Facebook friend: Your #1 premise is wrong. Obama gone implies that you want the same black-hearted bastards that have run this country into the ground for 8 of the last 11 Presidential terms. If you like the rich getting richer off of the rest of us go ahead fulfill your tragic destiny. The rest of us would like things to improve! That sure doesn’t mean Ron Paul either.

~

Me: You’re dead on right about Romney. He flip flops according to which way his campaign “weathermen” say which way the wind blows. Even with his support of Romneycare versus his non-support of Obamacare. Romney fights for power with the capitalist elite and military industrial complex. Obama just wants to play golf, take vacations on the taxpayer’s dime and hold lavish celebrity parties, fighting for power with the government so that more taxpayer money flows in to fund his and his cronies’ elitist agendas.

~

Ron Paul, in his thirty years of public service, has never wavered on his intentions if president (read his [two] recent books, Revolution: A Manifesto and Liberty Defined). He wants power with the people (“Power To The People, Right On”–John Lennon). Paul wants the strongest military possible, here at home where they belong, not spread out all over the world as “the big dog on the block” and in the business of nation building (“Give Peace A Chance”–John Lennon).

~

He wants the crooks in the Federal Reserve booted out. He wants to return our prosperity to America where it belongs. He wants privacy restored with hardcore limits on surveillance on the public through wiretaps, internet spying and drone surveillance.

~

How can the pure freedoms that he offers into the hands of Americans (you and me) be wrong in light of Romney’s push for power in the hands of the corporate elite and military industrial complex and in light of Obama’s push for taxpayer money (Obamacare did turn out to be a tax after all…hmmmm) in order to fund him and his elitist cronies and their every bit as lavish lifestyles as Gingrich, Romney, Trump…?

~

Paul wants social-care programs for those who cannot work in private hands, not in taxpayer-funded government hands. There are private-donation reliant community programs right now that work fine without government regulation–the Red Cross, Habitat For Humanity, local food banks…

~

With all due respect to my oldest and most loyal friend whom I’ve known now for 45 years, you don’t even vote. I’ve participated in caucuses at the precinct level and county level as well as having phoned and emailed members of congress and attended rallies on the steps of the State Capital. You and I in the wisdom of our years both know how the system works by now. We both know that Ron Paul is the only alternative to the “two sides of the same coin” of Obama and Romney.

~

You just can’t break away from the partisan tape-reels of Matt Taibbi, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart… that spin through your brain. I wish everyone could just “tear down the walls” of their red and blue boxes that they hide within–and breathe in the fresh air and long view of the reality outside.

. . . There is a strange similarity between Heaven and hell: . . . Each morning my damned say, “This is another day!” But they discover that it is the same as the day before. In Heaven, there is no time. Surely that is a greater weariness. My damned do not attain, for there is nothing to attain. Your holy souls do not attain, for total attainment is not possible. The soul strains, whether in Heaven or hell. If there is a singular difference I have yet to discern it. . . . But if even archangels are not to know its supreme secrets, wherein lies the satisfaction? To know that one can never know all appears to me, at times, to be hell, itself. At least my damned know all there is to know of hell, and my nature. There are no hidden corners, and if there are no fresh delights there are no fresh mysteries and no terrors, however sublime. This condition has always seemed the most desirable among men — and have I not given it to them?

There is an answer for every question in hell. My demons are solicitous. No soul asks without a reply. If the reply is mundane and possesses no novelty — did not man wish that for himself during the time of his mortal life? Nothing affrights these miserable wretches more than a hint that a strangeness is about to appear, yet they bewail — after a space — the sameness of hell. On all their worlds they struggle for the very condition they find in my hells — no disturbing variety, no uncertainty, no danger, no test of courage, no challenge, and no enigmas. They considered this the most marvelous of existences. Once assured of it in hell, however, they are agonized. I have always said that human souls were pusillanimous [lacking courage] and blind, and contradictory.

Certainly, in hell, there is no free will, for the damned relinquished it on their worlds. This torment has been denied them by me. Therefore, they cannot will to climb to Heaven by self-denial, by contemplation, by worship, by dedication, by acts of faith and charity. These attributes shriveled in them during their lives, or were rejected scornfully by them in moods of risible sophistications. They can desire to possess them now, but I would keep them safe and warm, as Our Father never kept them so! So, they can will nothing. They can only accept the pleasures — and the pains — I bestow on them.

In Heaven, however, free will is fully released. The ability to reject, to deny, remains with archangels, angels and the souls of the saved. The gift of repudiation is still with them and the possibility of disobedience. Is that not most frightful? What insecurity! What danger! My damned remain with me in eternal slavery because in life they desired only safety, and lacked the fire of adventure, though, God knows, they protested enough on their worlds! But what did they protest? Inequality, which is the variety of God. Instability, which is the light of the universes. Uneasiness of mind, which is the soul of philosophy. Apparent injustices, which are the goad of the spirit. Vulnerability to life and other men, which is a charge to become invulnerable through faith in God. The presence of suffering or misfortune — but these are a call for the soul to put on armor and serenity. They demanded of their rulers that they remain in constant cocoons, silky and guarded by earthly authority. They did not ask for wings to soar into the sunlight, and the ominous threats of full existence. They rejected freedom for hell. Certainly, they cried for freedom on their worlds, but it was freedom only to live happily without the freedom to be divinely unhappy.

I have satisfied all these lusts of men. Strange, is it not, that my hells, though the ultimate success of the dreams of men, are filled with weeping? And strange, is it not, that they still do not believe in the existence of God? But then, they never did; they believed only in me. They cannot will to believe in God. They see absolute reality about them now, which was their will in life. I will not pretend that I do not understand them, for was it not I who promised them all without work and without striving?

But lately I asked of a newly descended soul which had much acclaim on Terra: “What was your greatest desire on your world, you who were applauded by rulers and admired by your fellowmen?

He replied, “Justice for all,” and put on a very righteous expression.

That was admirable, for who does not admire justice, even I? But I probed him. He declared that in his earthly view all men deserved what all other men possessed, whether worthy or not. “They are men, so they are equal, and being born they have a right to the fruits of the world, no matter the condition of their birth or the content of their minds, or their capacities.” I conducted him through the pleasures of my hell, and he was delighted that no soul was lesser in riches than another, and that every soul had access to my banquets and my palaces, no soul was distinguishable from another, none possessed what another did not possess. Every desire was immediately gratified, he discovered. He smiled about him joyfully. He said, “Here, justice is attained!”

Then he saw that no face was joyful, however mean or lofty its features. He remarked, wonderingly, on the listlessness of my damned, and how they strolled emptily through thoroughfares filled with music and through streets wherein there was not a single humble habitation. He heard the cries of pleasure over my laden tables, and then heard them silenced, for there was no need now for food and where there is no need there is no desire and no enjoyment. He saw that the poorest on earth were clothed in magnificence and jewels, yet they wept the loudest. He was no fool. He said, “Satiety.” [Satisfied to excess.] True, I answered him, but satiety can live only in the presence of total equality. He pondered on this while I led him to the seat of thousands of philosophers, and he sat down among them. But, as there is no challenge in hell, and no mystery, there can be no philosophy. That night he came to me on his knees and begged for death. I struck him with my foot, and said, “O man, this was the hell you made, and this was the desire of your heart, so eat, drink, and be merry.”

He attempted to hang himself, in the manner of Judas, and I laughed at his futility. I meditated that above all futility is the climate of hell.

He said to me, in tears, “Then, if you are, then God exists.”

“That does not follow,” I replied to him. “But, did you not deny Him on Terra? Did you not speak of supra-man, and man-becoming, and the ultimate glorification of man on earth, without God?”

“I did not see God among men,” he said, wringing his hands.

“You did not look,” I said. “You were too dull in your human arrogance and too enamored of humanity. You never denounced your fellows for their lusts and their cruelties. You told them they were only ‘victims.’ You refused to look upon their nature, for you denied the infinite variety and capacities of nature. To you, one man was as good as any other man, and equally endowed, for the foolish reason that he had been born. You saw no saints, and no sinners. It was only a matter of environment, though the proof was all about you that environment is a mere shading or tint on the soul, and is not destiny. You denied that men have gifts of the spirit, often above those of other men. In truth, you denigrated those gifts of striving and wonder. You denied free will. Everything evil that happened to a man was only the result of his fellowmen’s lack of justice. You denied the reality of good and evil, the ability to make a choice. In short you denied life, itself.”

“Then God in truth does exist?” he asked, after a moment’s miserable thought.

“That you will never know,” I said. “But rejoice! All your dreams are fulfilled here. Delight yourself. Behold, there are beautiful female demons here, and banquets and sports and pleasures and soft beds and lovely scenes and all whom you had wished, in life, you had known. Converse with them.”

“There is no desire in me,” he said. “I want nothing.”

“You are surely in hell,” I replied, and I left him weeping.

God pursues them even in hell. Or, does He, my beloved Michael? Grief is the gift of God. But He will not have my damned! For they have no will to rise to Him. . . .

But let us speak of your new worlds, which you mentioned in your last letter.

Pandara, among the dozen about the enormous and fiery blue sun, interests me. Our Father struck six women and six men from the jeweled dust, and gave them the Sacrament of marriage. I must congratulate God, for these creatures are fairer than many others. Their flesh resembles rosy alabaster, and their hair is bright and sparkling, and their eyes are green and full of light. They will have eternal youth if they do not fall. They frolic and work in the warm and turquoise radiance, where there are no seasons because Pandara moves upright in her long slow orbit about her parent sun. There will be no fierceness of storm or calamities of nature — unless these creatures fall. There will be joyous labor and eager participation in life, and life without end in the forests full of red and purple and golden flowers, and about the lucent rivers and the mother-of-pearl lakes. There will be cities of song and learning. There will be adventure and delight. I have seen the red peaks of mountains, and the dawns like benedictions and the sunsets like Heaven, itself. There is no disease here, no hunger, no sorrow, no pain, no death. There is knowledge of God, and God moves among them, and they feel His presence and His love.

Alas, God has also endowed them with free will.

That is my opportunity.

The women and the men are as young as life. I can bring them age and evil and disease and death and violence and hatred and lusts. Six women, and six men. What shall I do?

Shall I introduce a seventh man, my Damon, who seduced so many on other worlds, and on miserable Terra, where he seduced Eve and Helen of Troy and millions of other women? He is a beautiful angel, full of gaiety and subtlety and delectabilities. His conversations are absorbing and delicious. His inventions of the flesh are luscious and charming; his concupiscences [sexual desires] are sweeter than any fruit. Few women have ever rejected him. His very touch, his smile, is beguiling, and he is all that is male. How can any woman resist him?

If introduced on Pandara the women will reflect that he is far more beautiful than their husbands, and that he does not toil in the fields and that his discourses are wondrous and mysterious, and that he hints of joys they have never experienced before. Sad, is it not, that even Our Father stands at bay before a woman? Who can know the intricacies of a female heart, and its secret imaginings? Damon knows these intricacies, and winds them about his fingers like silver or darksome threads. He can persuade almost any woman into adultery.

It needs but Damon to destroy Pandara.

Or, perhaps, I will send Lilith, my favorite female demon, to the men of Pandara, that beautiful planet. She seduced Adam and Pericles and Alexander and Julius Caesar and so many rulers on Terra now. Who is so lovely as Lilith? Once she graced the Courts of Heaven and all looked on her beauty with awe. She has a thousand astounding forms, and each one more gorgeous than another. She is never oppressive, never demanding. She is yielding and soft and attentive. She follows; she never leads. When she speaks her voice is like celestial music. Each attitude resembles a stature of sublime glory. She says to men, “How wondrous you are, how unique, how intellectual, how far above me in understanding!” She is femininity itself, easily conquered, easily overcome by flattery, easily induced to surrender. She has only to beckon and men rush to her with cries of lust and desire.

Damon or Lilith?

Strange to remark, men are less susceptible to determined seduction than women. Damon can offer women mysteries and endless amusement, and what woman can spurn mystery or amusement? They love the secret dark places, the moon, the whispered hotness, the promise of uniqueness and adoration. Women do not crave power; they are not objective. Truth to them is relative. Is this evil or good? Women in their minds can create a confusion, and this, on so many worlds, they have bequeathed to their sons. A woman can resolve all things in her mind and make so many splendid compromises. If the women of Pandara look upon Damon there will be rivalries for his smiles and attention, the lonely male they will yearn to take to their breasts when their husbands are absent. There is a certain doggedness in husbands which women find full of ennui.

On the other hand, there is Lilith, who is always ambiguous and never captured. Men seek after the uncaptured, the unattainable, which, alas, is the climate of Heaven. Lilith is always pursued but never caught. What man can resist Lilith, who never argues, never complains, is always complaisant and always fresh and dainty? Her conversation never demands that a man ponder, or question. Men, I have discovered, detest women who pose challenges of the mind and the soul. They are engrossed in the flesh to the deepest extent, therefore they are simple, however their pretensions to intellect. They dislike women who ask “Why?” They turn from women with serious faces and furrowed brows. They wish only to play, to gratify themselves in moments of leisure. They find their wives always at hand, and women’s conversation is usually concerned with children and the dull affairs of daily living. The women say, “How are the crops, or the cattle? How is our present treasure?”

But Lilith says, “Let us frolic and rejoice in the sun and weave garlands of roses and drink wine and laugh and discover comedies. Above all, let us embrace each other.” This is the exact opposite of the conversation of wives, and so is irresistible.

Too, women are sedulous [persevering] in the seeking of God, which is the other side of their nature. Men can endure just so much of God, and just so much discussion of Him. After that, they seek love and physical activity or their little philosophies. Or sleep. Men love slumber, though women resist it. Man reasons, woman conjectures. Therefore, man wearies first. He is always yawning in the very midst of feminine discourse.

Considering this, I believe Damon will be the most potent in Pandara, as he was in the majority of worlds. Women do not fall lightly. Eve gave much thought before she ate of the Forbidden Tree. (Adam was merely vaguely aware of it, and, as it was forbidden, he usually ignored it. Men are slaves to law.) Damon adores the struggle in the female spirit, for while seductible it thinks of God. Lilith often complains that men are so easily the victims of their flesh, so there is no serious enticement, no arduous pursuit. In concupiscence, men never think of God at all.

I shall send Damon, the beautiful, the most alluring of male demons.

(If I seem contradictory concerning the nature of humanity . . . Michael, it does not follow that I am inconsistent. I have written that men are less susceptible than women to seduction, but that is on the score of sensibility. A woman cannot be seduced by raw sensuality; her mind and spirit must be engaged also, and she must be convinced that in some fashion the purity of love is involved. She must feel the wings of her soul expand, so that all is well lost for love, itself. It takes on itself, in her mind, the aspect of the eternal, the immutable. So, women are an excitement to Damon. But the purely female, like Lilith, cannot be resisted by men, who see nothing eternal in marital love, nothing sanctified, however the words they repeated by rote. A woman is just an encounter to a man. She can be successfully resisted only if she is intelligent and only if she asks questions, and only if she demands that the situation be permanent. Woman must be seduced through her most delicate emotions. Man alone can be seduced if no spiritual emotions are present at all. Damon was forced to converse with Eve to the point of exhaustion before she ate of the fruit which was forbidden. Had Lilith approached Adam, the deliciousness of the fruit would have needed only to be described. . . .

Yes, my choice will be Damon. He will be elegant to the women of Pandara. He will not openly seduce. He will treat them as equals, yet not so equal that it diminishes his masculine power. He will declare that their souls and their minds entrance him, that above all women they are the most ravishing. He will talk poetry with them hour after hour; he will never be bored, as husbands are bored. He will indicate the beauties on their world, and will strike attitudes, but not effeminate ones. He will tenderly entwine flowers in their bright hair. He will kiss their hands, and show his muscles at the same time. If they leap with enjoyment, he will leap higher. He will pursue, and offer them ardent embraces. He will discuss their natural problems with them, with manly indulgence. If they become pettish, in the way of women, he will seize them in his strong arms and quiet their mouths with his own. At the last, as if tired of play, he will lift them up and run with them to some silent glade and forcibly take them, ignoring their hypocritical cries and their beating hands. Above all, he will pretend that they, themselves, seduced him with their beauty and reduced him to distraction. What woman can believe that she is without allurement, either of the body or the mind?

I am sad for you, Michael, my brother. Pandara is already lost. I am sending Damon tonight to the women of your beautiful planet. I will reserve Lilith for later, when the race is fallen. She will convince men that lust is more delightful than reason, and feminine charms more to be desired than sanctity, or duty. The flesh, she will say, has its imperative, but where is the imperative of the soul — if it exists at all? The flesh is tangible and lovely. Who would forego it for the transports of the spirit? The man who would do that, she will inform her victims, is no man at all and is not potent.

In short, he is a eunuch. What man does not believe that with a perceptive woman he will be forever virile, despite age or change? Lilith will introduce man to perversions and to atrocities. She will guide him into cruelties which women can never imagine. She will cloud his mind. She will darken his soul against God, while he basks in her arms.

I anticipate Pandara and her sister worlds, for they are now inhabited with a new race, fairer and more intelligent than Terra, among others. Terra, in particular, has always had a certain and sickening mediocrity of intellectual climate, now stimulated by those who designate themselves as “intellectuals.” Terra dutifully conforms to what her race calls non-conformity. Rare has been the man in her history who was truly individual, and those men were either murdered for their purity of soul or, in despair at the race, became its glorious assassins. In general, the history of Terra has been stupid if frightful, predictable if dreadful. The souls of Terra which descend to me give even hell disagreeable moments, for they are ciphers. Yet, on the other hand, they form a special torment to those souls from other worlds who are more intellectually endowed, and it is very amusing. The men from other worlds have even, in hell, attempted to lift up the intelligence of the men of Terra, to no avail, but to much comedy for my demons. There have been desperate but fruitless classes in the sciences and the arts for the men of Terra, and they have always failed, and there have been cries, “These souls are not truly human! They are impermeable! True, but I always discourage such outcries with the formula of “democracy.” This ritualistic word silences the souls of other worlds, if it tortures them, for was it not their own invention?

My dear brother. In the golden twilight of Pandara I visited your magnificent planet. There I discovered you in a great purple garden, conversing with Our Father, and your voice was full of laughter and gaiety and innocent abandon, for you were rejoicing in the beauty of where you found yourself and were exchanging jests with Him. . . . I did not see Our Father, but He saw me. I felt His majestic presence, and I covered my face with my wings. But still, I knew His penetrating eyes and how can I bear them, so full of reproach and sorrow? It is not my fault. He does not understand, and, alas, it is possible that He never will. He did not speak to me, but He spoke to you, and I heard your voices and your mirth. The green dolphins of the seas appeared to be amusing you.

I have had another thought: When Pandara has fallen I will send one of my favorite demons to her, whose name is Triviality. You know him well. You have seen him in his activity on thousands of planets, and he is more deadly than Damon and Lilith combined. . . .

GREETINGS to my brother, Michael, who is very tender and brave but, alas, most naive:

. . . If my entry into heaven must be accompanied by the souls of men, then I prefer my hells. At least there I torment my insulters and the insulters of Our Father, and that is an exuberant delight, one, I fear, you will never know.

Delight! Most assuredly! It is a joy which I cannot explain in words you would understand. Sufficient it is to say that I play with those souls as they played with their victims, and with the same mercilessness, only a thousand times enhanced. When they beseech me for pity I listen with ecstasy to their cries. Beasts, animals! To think that they, too, possess immortal life! They grovel before me and clutch my garments and I spurn them with my foot. Sometimes I admit a few of their wisest to my dark tabernacle and converse with them for the pleasure of listening to their stupidity, their arrant foolishness. Often I summon the great among them and urge them to speak of their fame on Terra, and it is an enormous amusement. They say to me, “I did not believe in you, nor in God, yet you manifestly are,” and they marvel. I conjure their lies before them and I say, “There was I, in that apparition, when you planned this — or that — and you heard my voice and took rapture in it. Why did you hearken to me, beast of beasts?” They answer, falling before my face, “I believed in nothing but myself and my own grandeur and my own will.” But they believed in me.

They repent. But it is too late. They came to me, not through august sins which at least possess a measure of grandeur and imagination, but through sins so mean and contemptible that they are below the comprehension of the lowest of creatures on Terra. The serpent in the forest is not as poisonous as man, the rabid bat is not as mad and loathsome, the toothed shark is not so foul a scavenger, For none of these can lie. That is the prerogative of man only. Man always takes on the aspect of the serpent, the bat and the shark, and their habits. He is more dreadful than these, for he lacks their innocence and he knows what he does and he does it with enthusiasm and passion, It is through his lies that man comes to me, his lies of the flesh and the spirit, for untruth is a perversion and man is a pervert. He is the incarnation of the lie which is myself, and all the evil that he does is his corruption of truth.

. . .

My demons look upon the bountiful harvests of the souls of men who swarm through my fiery portals each hour, and they look with revulsion, for never, even among demons, was ever a spirit so malicious, so embued with hatred for his fellows, as the spirit of man. In his life on Terra he prates of love and esteems it with his tongue as the greatest of virtues. Yet never was a creature so loveless in his heart even when announcing love to the heavens. He crowds before the altars he has raised to God, and the lie nestles in his flesh, and the repudiation and disbelief, and even when he cries “Hosannah!” he chuckles in secret at his own perfidy. He loves that perfidy. He believes it gives him intellectual stature. He looks upon the crucified Lord and it needs no whisper from me to make him speak in his spirit and deny. He has many arguments, and they amuse him.

Not all men, you would say. Michael, Michael! That miserable little stream which flows to heaven is hardly a trickle compared with the great river that pours down to me!

You have not seen their appalled faces when they encounter me, who greet them thus: “Welcome to your spiritual home, you who have denied all things!” Still, it is very strange. Though they did not believe in Our Father, they truly believed in me, though they did not know it. You serve only that in which you believe, with knowledge or without knowledge. They would have been amazed to encounter you, Michael, and would have marveled. But they do not marvel at me. They recognize me at once. They have seen my face countless times, and they know all my lineaments. Nor is hell unfamiliar to them. They created a mirage of it on Terra, and they know every alley, every darksome passage, every icy lake, every mountain of fire, every gloomy shadow, every city of death, every pool of corruption. For while I established my hells, it was man who lifted up the walls and established the noisome places and lit the fires and froze the waters. It is, therefore, no mystery that he recognizes every path and sits down in his chosen spot to weep and repent. He built the house in which he dwells. At least, that is a species of freedom, for man did not build heaven. For in participation there is liberty, and complete liberty reigns in hell. Have I not said it through the ages! You have called my creatures slaves but slaves do not build to their design, and men build the designs of the infernos. It is by God’s Grace when man reaches heaven, and not by his merits, and so perhaps not even his will. But men will to dwell with me, and where there is will there is freedom. Has not Our Father declared that, Himself? He is the Paradox of paradoxes.

There are no contradictions in hell. There are no wonders, for everything in hell is familiar to the souls of men. There is the complete security which men have always craved on Terra, but which Our Father lovingly denies them, for God is the Creator of infinite and opposing variety, delicious contrast, innocent comicalities, awesome inequalities, enchanting absurdities, paradoxes, fearsome challenges, exciting uncertainties. This, I admit, stimulates color and splendor and merriment and marvelings and stern beauties and liveliness and trembling anticipations. But in hell there is nothing to anticipate; there is no variety, there is no insecurity. There are pain and boredom, and boredom is the most monstrous of punishments. Beside it, pain is a relief, so, despite the rumors of the ignorant on Terra, there is little pain in my hells except for futile regret. There is no future, yet there is time. Endless time, and endless sameness.

The pious in Terra speak only of the agonies of hell, and they exist for they are pleasure. Have they seen my glorious cities, bewitching, extravagant? They are filled with the delights of Terra, but immeasurably enhanced. Millions, newly arrived, look upon them with eagerness and smiles, and rush to inhabit them. The lavish city in which I live is a city that lived in the hot imaginations of men, filled with every satisfaction of their vile hearts, every concupiscent lust of their flesh, every dream of their envious hearts. There are glittering houses heaped with gleaming treasures, and ballrooms and arenas and theaters and stadia, and shops to make any merchant weep with greed, and towering castles of every perversion and streets of magnitude filled with music, and tables everywhere crowded with saucy viands and bottomless vessels of wine, and demons to be slavish lackeys. There are vistas of heroic mountains like alabaster, and sparkling forests vibrating with song and valleys lush as velvet and rivers like gilt. Here souls of the damned are free to come and go, to sport, to converse, to play, to partake of all my captivations. They are free to argue their childish controversies, to engage in the pursuits that enthralled them on Terra, to discuss strange things with the inhabitants of worlds of which they never dreamed, to invent new theories and excited hypotheses, to “seduce” beautiful female demons. There is not an alluring vice that is denied them, not a passion which is not immediately gratified. Ah, I tell you, Michael, they often mistake hell for heaven at first!

But pleasure never changes in hell, never diminishes, can never aspire to greater diversions such as exalted meditation and reflection; never knows an end. Nothing is withheld; there is no struggle; there are no heart-burnings, no room for ambition and achievement. All is equal; all is accessible to every soul. There is no applause, for no soul exceeds another in stature. No face is different from any other face, nothing is unique or creative or deserving of acclaim. No soul is worthy, for all are worthless. Each is clad in the robes of doom — unchanging uniformity. Where one soul cannot excel another in any fashion ennui results and a mysterious terror, for God created all souls to strive and excel and thus be free and develop priceless individuality. But, it is my democracy.

At last, in despair and desperate boredom, my doomed pray for the less attractive portions of my sovereignty, where there is pain, and weeping and gnashing of teeth. Grief, at the final hour, becomes more desirable than pleasure, for it has endless ramifications. At the last I can engage these damned in my service — the seduction of souls yet living on Terra. At least there is some excitement in this! Envy and hatred and resentment are enlisted in my employ, for who of the damned can rejoice to see a soul escape him? What rejoicings there are in hell when more of the corrupted fall into the pit! If the Heavenly Hosts are joyous when a soul is saved, how much more are the damned joyous when a soul falls! Do not ask me why. Did I create man? His perverted mind often makes me recoil with disgust. You would say I perverted him. No, I only tempt.

With what glee my damned introduce the newly doomed to my hells! They look upon their dismayed faces and hug themselves with rapture. They peer for tears, and drink them avidly. They take the newly doomed by the hand and shout with happiness at the recoiling when horrors are confronted. This is the only satisfaction in hell, and it is a satisfaction most deeply encouraged.

Eventually, they all crave death and extinction. I am more compassionate than Our Father. I would often give them true death. But Our Father cursed them with eternal life, and so who is, in truth, the most merciless? God cannot withdraw from His own Law, therefore He cannot rescue my damned. When He gave immortality to man, did He know to what He had condemned him? Alas, alas, there are times when I would grant them death. Is your question then not answered? I am no Paradox, as is Our Father. Had I created man — God forbid! I should not have given him the free will to be damned if he desired. I should have made him obedient and docile, a gay little creature who could not know the difference between good and evil and therefore could have had no life but one brief day in the sun. I should have made him truly mortal, like a mayfly who takes pleasure in the noon and at sunset folds his wings and drifts into dust.

You once told me that hell is hell because no love can dwell there, and love is impossible. That is true. But love is passive and hatred is active, and man is always active like an insect which can never be still. Therefore, Michael, I shall win at last, for man is invariably enthusiastic and zealous, and languishes only when there is nothing to hate.